<b>Discussions</b>: Each week, we will discuss in depth one paper from the primary literature. The discussion leaders should let the course instructors know if they have ideas for a paper or would like suggestions. A link to the paper will be posted on EEBedia by the Friday before the discussion. We expect everyone to participate actively in the discussion. Two students will guide the discussion, based on a list of questions they write and distribute in advance. To help prepare for discussions, all students should write a brief (<1 page) reaction piece to the weekly readings, highlighting your thoughts about the readings, connections between them or questions raised by them. (Note: this reaction piece should *not* summarize the contents of the paper.) This will be handed in each week. Discussion grades will be based on a combination of discussion participation, reaction pieces, effectiveness at leading discussions, questions during presentations.<br><br>

<b>Discussions</b>: Each week, we will discuss in depth one paper from the primary literature. The discussion leaders should let the course instructors know if they have ideas for a paper or would like suggestions. A link to the paper will be posted on EEBedia by the Friday before the discussion. We expect everyone to participate actively in the discussion. Two students will guide the discussion, based on a list of questions they write and distribute in advance. To help prepare for discussions, all students should write a brief (<1 page) reaction piece to the weekly readings, highlighting your thoughts about the readings, connections between them or questions raised by them. (Note: this reaction piece should *not* summarize the contents of the paper.) This will be handed in each week. Discussion grades will be based on a combination of discussion participation, reaction pieces, effectiveness at leading discussions, questions during presentations.<br><br>

−

<b>Preproposal</b>: Each student will write an NSF-style preproposal on a topic of your choice that is related to evolution. Ideally, your project will be closely connected to your own research interests, and also integrate multiple topics covered in class. You should receive written approval for your preproposal project no later than Thursday, Oct. 25, and are encouraged to begin discussing your ideas with the course instructors well in advance of this. The final preproposal is due by Monday Nov. 28 at 5 pm.<br><br>

+

<b>Preproposal</b>: Each student will write an NSF-style preproposal on a topic of your choice that is related to evolution. Ideally, your project will be closely connected to your own research interests, and also integrate multiple topics covered in class. You should receive written approval for your preproposal project no later than Thursday, Oct. 25, and are encouraged to begin discussing your ideas with the course instructors well in advance of this. The final preproposal is due by Monday Nov. 28 at 5 pm.<br>

−

<b>Preproposal Panel Review</b>: Each student will be assigned three preproposals to review. We will meet during the final exam period to conduct an NSF-style panel review of the full set of proposals. <br><br>

+

The Preproposal is '''limited to four pages''' (not including References) and, in addition to the title and your name, should include the following 5 sub-sections (per NSF preproposal guidelines):<br>

+

1. "Conceptual Framework" or "Objectives" or "Specific Aims"<br>

+

2. "Rationale and Significance" or "Background"<br>

+

3. "Research Question(s)" or "Hypotheses"<br>

+

4. "Research Approach" or "Experimental Plan"<br>

+

5. "Broader Impacts"<br>

+

+

There is no specific requirements for the length of each sub-section. But a good balance could be something like: Section 1, 1/4-1/3 pages; Section 2: 1/2-2/3 pages; Section 3: 1/3-2/3 pages; Section 4: 1.5-2 pages (including figures); Section 5: 1/2-2/3 pages. Before writing the preproposal, you should also familiarize yourself with the Review Criteria as listed in the next section<br>

+

+

References Cited are limited to 3 pages. You can use a standard journal style for the reference format. Fonts should be "Arial 10-11" or "Times New Roman 11-12".<br>

+

+

+

+

<b>Preproposal Panel Review</b>: Each student will be assigned three preproposals to review. We will meet during the final exam period to conduct an NSF-style panel review of the full set of proposals. Here are the Review Criteria extracted from the NSF preproposal guidelines: <br>

+

+

"When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:<br>

2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?<br>

+

3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?<br>

+

4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?<br>

+

5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?<br><br>

+

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology,

+

engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education."

Contents

Description

This is an advanced course that explores the patterns and mechanisms of biological evolution (from molecules to organisms to ecosystems) and the applications of evolutionary principles in other branches of Biology and Medicine. Class periods will include discussion and critical analysis of primary literature.

Instructors

Announcements and Handouts

Presentation & discussion sign-up: Everyone should sign up for 1 presentation and 1 discussion slot in the first half of the course (through Novelty 1/Oct. 18). If you have access to EEBedia, please sign yourself up directly. If not, send Yaowu or Elizabeth some information about your preferences, and we'll sign you up. We will need to triple up for one session, so if the topic you really want is full, ask for it anyway. Those of you who are signing up now can also help yourselves to first pick (also 1 presentation & 1 discussion) for the second half of the course.

Discussion leaders: Please post a pdf with discussion questions on the course website prior to the discussion. In the ideal world, this would happen no later than Sunday night of the week you will lead discussion.

Editing EEBedia: To post discussion questions and links to papers, you will need to edit the EEBedia site [this page] directly. Here's some helpful information for those of you new to EEBedia.

Posting papers on EEBedia: Presenters should post a link to their chosen paper by the end of Friday the week before the presentation. Do NOT post the pdf, as this would be a copyright violation in some cases (and bloats the material stored on EEBedia). This link goes in the last column of the Topics and Readings table and should include the exproxy prefix (http://ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/login?url=http://) followed by the web address for the paper. Be sure to test it! Include basic citation information as the displayed text.

Accessing papers from off campus: Access to some resources is through subscriptions paid for by the UConn libraries. If you try to access these resources from off-campus, you may encounter a subscription page that asks you to pay an inordinate sum. If this happens, there are two ways to authenticate yourself as a UConn user. You can either configure UConn's VPN client (see instructions here) or login with ezproxy (full instructions here); the short version of the latter is that you just need to paste the following http://ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/login?url=http:// at the beginning of the link you are trying to access. (second http:// depends on whether your browser enters that automatically.) For both methods, you will need to login with your netid and password.

Textbook: Although no specific textbook readings are required, we highly recommend that you use one of the major Evolution textbooks as a companion for this course. It will be helpful both to refresh your knowledge of core topics and to gain additional background by reading relevant sections whenever the lecture focuses on topics you are relatively unfamiliar with. There are multiple good options:

Bergstrom and Dugatkin, Evolution

Freeman and Herron, Evolutionary Analysis

Futuyma, Evolution

Zimmer and Emlen, Evolution, Making Sense of Life

Resources

Expectations and Grading

This course has a mixed lecture/discussion format. In general, Thursdays will be used for lectures that provide an overview and background information. Tuesdays will be dedicated to student presentations and student-led discussion of readings from the primary literature.

Presentations: Each student will give two presentations about papers from the primary literature, selected in consultation with the instructors. Each presenter should post a link to their paper on EEBedia by the Friday before the presentation. All students are expected to look at these papers briefly and come prepared to ask questions. More information about presentation preparation is available here.

Discussions: Each week, we will discuss in depth one paper from the primary literature. The discussion leaders should let the course instructors know if they have ideas for a paper or would like suggestions. A link to the paper will be posted on EEBedia by the Friday before the discussion. We expect everyone to participate actively in the discussion. Two students will guide the discussion, based on a list of questions they write and distribute in advance. To help prepare for discussions, all students should write a brief (<1 page) reaction piece to the weekly readings, highlighting your thoughts about the readings, connections between them or questions raised by them. (Note: this reaction piece should *not* summarize the contents of the paper.) This will be handed in each week. Discussion grades will be based on a combination of discussion participation, reaction pieces, effectiveness at leading discussions, questions during presentations.

Preproposal: Each student will write an NSF-style preproposal on a topic of your choice that is related to evolution. Ideally, your project will be closely connected to your own research interests, and also integrate multiple topics covered in class. You should receive written approval for your preproposal project no later than Thursday, Oct. 25, and are encouraged to begin discussing your ideas with the course instructors well in advance of this. The final preproposal is due by Monday Nov. 28 at 5 pm.

The Preproposal is limited to four pages (not including References) and, in addition to the title and your name, should include the following 5 sub-sections (per NSF preproposal guidelines):
1. "Conceptual Framework" or "Objectives" or "Specific Aims"
2. "Rationale and Significance" or "Background"
3. "Research Question(s)" or "Hypotheses"
4. "Research Approach" or "Experimental Plan"
5. "Broader Impacts"

There is no specific requirements for the length of each sub-section. But a good balance could be something like: Section 1, 1/4-1/3 pages; Section 2: 1/2-2/3 pages; Section 3: 1/3-2/3 pages; Section 4: 1.5-2 pages (including figures); Section 5: 1/2-2/3 pages. Before writing the preproposal, you should also familiarize yourself with the Review Criteria as listed in the next section

References Cited are limited to 3 pages. You can use a standard journal style for the reference format. Fonts should be "Arial 10-11" or "Times New Roman 11-12".

Preproposal Panel Review: Each student will be assigned three preproposals to review. We will meet during the final exam period to conduct an NSF-style panel review of the full set of proposals. Here are the Review Criteria extracted from the NSF preproposal guidelines:

"When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
 Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
 Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education."